Pray for Syria

What could be sadder than a grieving relative mourning the loss of a child in the family?
We have mentioned Syria many times on this blog: here and here are two recent posts. There has been darkness and death there. Residents have been chased out of their homes, displaced and massacred. Seems like chaos and bloodshed are everywhere. Just when we thought things cannot be any worse, there is word of possible chemical attacks in Syria where children are among those killed. The world saw the pictures of the dead, including children lying on the floors and those of the dead in shrouds ready for burial. The world didn’t say much or do much. The dictators continue to hold on their power at the cost of thousands of innocent lives. The United Nations inspectors are now scheduled to go to Syria and inspect the “chemical weapons” site.
We pray for a peaceful resolution to this bloodshed.

18 Responses

Perhaps the “world” didn’t say much or do much because they are damned if they do and damned if they don’t…

For example, the US goes into Iraq and, in the end, has to extricate itself. The US goes into Afghanistan and, in the end, has to extricate itself. It seems many support entry into these sorts of countries with these sorts of conflicts but, in a few short years, when our dead soldier count mounts, everybody wants out.

We may have got smarter with Libya – and maybe smarter still with what’s going on in Egypt. And we didn’t go into the Sudan several years ago.

Fighting among various factions in Middle East has gone on for centuries – unfortunately, it seems those factions are willing to continue to do so. Most of these conflicts are essentially civil wars. As such, these people need to work out their differences among themselves – no outside party will ever be able to force “peace” upon and among them. However, until the involved factions are truly willing to embrace non-violent solutions, such solutions aren’t going to happen (and be sustained).

Unfortunately, the Syrian government’s use of chemical weapons may drag us into this. Everyone will say, under such circumstance, we should intervene – and in a few short years, after a number of our country’s citizens (in the form of our country’s soldiers) die and/or are attacked, everyone will clamor for us to get out – and we will, once again, have to extricate ourselves…

Still, the images of the dead (gassed?) people, specially the children, were so profound and so heart-wrenching that they moved me to speak out. I meant we did not hear an uproar — international leaders and humanitarian groups did not condemn the deaths/killings as much as I would have expected. We don’t get much world news in America, since U.S. media don’t cover much international response.

War is rarely the longterm solution to conflict and I feel that in this day and age, problems should be worked out by peaceful means.

Azra, I agree that something needs to be done and that we need to alleviate the suffering of the Syrian people. In the past 2.5 years over 10,000 people have died and there are almost 6 million refugees, a large number of them are children.

The use of chemical weapons definitely has to be stopped before it happens again but a military strike is definitely not the answer.

We need to create an international coalition for negotiations which need to start with a ceasefire and all factions at the table plus the various regional countries. International pressure needs to be put on the Assad regime by trying the government in the International Criminal court for war crimes and possibly trying some of the opposition forces as well.

That means that we need to meet with Russia and not cancel meetings because only Russia and Iran can get Assad to agree to a ceasefire and a negotiated settlement.
The Arab League is also in favor of a negotiated peace.

And we need to use the money that we have been spending in arming each side of this civil war on sending humanitarian aid to the refugees and displaced people who are dying, starving and suffering.

This won’t be quick or easy but it needs to be done. Any military strike that would be large enough to prevent Assad’s military from attacking its people would kill many civilians and destroy vital infrastructure. And we need to learn the lessons of Iraq and not cripple the civil servants and other trained bureaucrats but instead incorporate them into whatever interim government is formed as a transition occurs.

Mickie Lynn: Your response, if made and took seriously during World War II, would have only continued the killing and genocide, which is what is happening in Syria right now.

Russia is not serious, they only want to keep their arms trade with Syrian government open. Assad has no reason to go to the table, he is fully supported by China and Russia.

And in fact the Arab League supported military intervention in Libya and according to Reuters is now urging the UN to take decisive action, which is the Arab League’s political cover for US military strikes.

Civilians are already dying in Syria Mickie Lynn, if you’re response is that we should refrain from saving innocent lives because of collateral human casulties, then you are only allowing evil to persist because you lack the moral courage to stand behind your convictions that chemical attacks by governments on civilian populations is wrong.

Your “plan” will only result in continual warfare and is as morally devoid as watching an old man get beaten to death on a street corner while standing around and doing nothing, because for all your talk, that’s exactly what you are proposing, standing around and doing nothing.

I have to say, from a humanitarian standpoint and in considering of the great suffering in Syria, I find your response practically criminal.

Hello Azra and blog readers. I’ve just written a long article about alternatives to military intervention in Syria but recommendations that go well beyond simple condemnation by the United Nations. Lots of links to information if you want to explore the subject in depth.

Jango, you are just plain wrong about what cruise missile strikes can accomplish besides killing thousands more Syrians and destroying their homes and neighborhoods.

You wrote your comment before my link to my own resource rich blog article was published. So don’t take the “easy way out” but follow the links and do the research, rather than just making vague statements and accusations.

[And speaking of errors I left out a zero when I enumerated the deaths of Syrians in my original comment. It should read more than 100,000 deaths and not more than 10,000 deaths.]

If you don’t believe me or the other people linked to in my article then how about Republican Congressman Chris Gibson, a former military officer.

Here’s the link to his interview just published on Capital Confidential. He also believes that missile attacks will not stop the killing but will just make things worse and he also recommends strengthening the War Powers Act so that Presidents can’t start wars without the consent of Congress.

“Rep. Chris Gibson said he opposes air strikes against Syria, especially without an authorization vote in Congress, and says they will simply lead to an “Americanization” of the two-year-old civil war there and “make it worse…”

“I understand the impulse. I am saddened by what’s going on, but we have a responsibility to take action that will make a difference, and will make a positive difference,” Gibson told the Times Union. “Intervening militarily will not do that, and in fact, I believe it will make it worse. … I think there is considerable leverage that we have diplomatically and economically: Syria cannot long survive isolated.”

“I urge the administration and my colleagues to think this through,” he continued. “I’m speaking now from my military experience: if you engage in an attack, what effects will that have on the ground? How will those effects be perceived? What might be the actions of the parties on the ground now — the rebels and the regime? What might be the reaction be of other interested parties in the region? How would we respond to that? And how does all of this lead us to long-term goal we have? … How do we integrate all dimensions of power to achieve those objectives? This is what’s not clear.”[…]

I rarely agree with Mickie Lynn but she is right on the money here. I am also glad she quotes Congressman Gibson’s remarks, which are totally accurate and come from a person with extensive military experience who knows first-hand the disaster that can result from impulsive military action. The only thing I disagree with is emptying our Treasury to send massive “humanitarian aid into this chaotic war zone. The track record of decades of this in Africa and other hot spots is not encouraging. Official corruption, looting and violence can divert much well-meaning aid into the hands of predatory profiteers and the combatants themselves. Our own humanitarian efforts in this country are at risk due to meataxe-style budget-cutting to pay for the stalemates in Iraq and Afghanistan, among other places.

“The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.

“As Commander-in-Chief, the President does have a duty to protect and defend the United States. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch. It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action.” Senator Barrack Obama, in 2007.

Mickey, I’m glad that we agree about the need to avoid precipitous military actions against Syria. It’s also good that the British Parliament decided to wait as well and that Congress is asking for a debate before any authorization of military force.

Where we disagree is on the humanitarian aid issue. Of the worldwide aid promised to help the refugees (almost 7 million now) of the Syrian civil war only a small percentage has been delivered thus far.

You make it sound as if aid to refugees will be lost in corruption and greed as it has been in Afghanistan but there are internationally recognized agencies such as the UNHCR, Doctors without Borders, Partners in Health and the International Rescue Committee that translate such aid directly into help for suffering human beings.

As an example here’s just a brief video from IRC that indicates what their work has been in some of the camps for the internally displaced.

Thank you, Mickie Lynn. I meant in no way to disparage the efforts of these fine organizations. Those with vast experience in these matters must know that there needs to be accountability and internal safeguards to assure that as much humanitarian aid as possible gets to those actually in e. In that vein, I trust the organizations that are faith-based or professional who rely on voluntary contributions to account for these funds much better than the Federal government, which seems incompetent and incapable of keeping track of billions and cannot stop waste and fraud even within our own borders. I’d rather voluntary contributions fund this effort than taxpayer dollars.

President Obama, 2013: “I believe I have the authority to carry out this military action without specific congressional authorization.” Times Union, page A1, Monday, September 2nd, 2013 “Obama’s credibility on line in reversal”

“The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.” Senator Barrack Obama, 2007

Mr Obama’s position continues to evolve away from the politically popular position that he took when he was a candidate, instead of a President. Obama’s cowboy, unilateralist desire to attack a sovereign state needs more evidence, and the kind of coalitions that won the Iraq wars.

Realist/Edgar/Ellie Fanz Remember, You’ve shared that little gem (comment #14) in exactly the same words on many blogs during the past week. Got anything constructive and non partisan to say about how the US needs to handle the current situation?

I’m so relieved that at least President Obama has called a pause for Congress to return and debate the use of military force in Syria. This is a non-partisan issue and two of our area Representatives are currently opposed to air strikes. Chris Gibson, a Republican with 24 years as a military officer and Paul Tonko, a Democratic Representative. Here’s more on that topic:

Two of our Capital District Representatives are opposed to US military action in Syria, Paul Tonko who represents the 20th Congressional District and Chris Gibson who represents the 19th District. Below are links to two recent articles in the TU:

Tonko Says he’s very concerned about attacking Syria

Rep. Paul Tonko says he “very concerned” about the prospect of military action in Syria, and suggested he would buck President Barack Obama and vote against any resolution in Congress to authorize airstrikes. […]

Tonko joins Rep. Chris Gibson, a Kinderhook Republican who served 24 years in the Army before retiring to run for office, in opposing military action. Leaders in the Obama administration and Congress expect a vote to take place sometime after lawmakers reconvene on September 9.

Rep. Chris Gibson said he opposes air strikes against Syria, especially without an authorization vote in Congress, and says they will simply lead to an “Americanization” of the two-year-old civil war there and “make it worse.”[…]

While many of his fellow Republicans including Arizona Sen. John McCain have long pushed for American military intervention in Syria, Gibson has said he sees involvement there as leading down a slippery slope.

Additionally, Gibson has expressed concern over the possibility of using military force without congressional authorization: he has sponsored a bill to overhaul the War Powers Act, which sets out when congressional approval is required for military actions.

I’ve suggested before, that in a Democratic Republic form of government, like we have in the United States, “We” the people get to choose our leaders and when we choose poorly, “We” those same people, have nobody to blame but ourselves for the consequences of our choices.

As it relates to Syria, multiple issues and mishandled opportunities in the general Middle East and even beyond that to the greater issue of prominance in world affairs, we have chosen the current group of “Leaders”, who have simply, and obviously, performed poorly.

Good intentions have absolutely no intrinsic value unless and until they prove to be effective and accomplish their objective. As with any new Administration taking root, there are multiple situations that either exist, or have the potential of coming to the forefront that must be dealt with.

The decisions, policies and actions taken by a new Administration either improve those already problematic situations and prevent other situations from becoming problematic, OR THEY DO NOT. When approaches to problems prove unsuccessful, whether the cause of the approach or not, the adroitness of the Administration to adjust to the actual circumstance and shift it’s behavior to correct unsuccessful results becomes critical.

It’s unfortunate, regretable and I’m sure very frustrating that planned strategies have accomplished so little, but the ability of the Obama Administration to recognize dead ends, respond quickly to stop bleeding and turn negative results into positive perspectives has been abysmal. On the contrary, vassilation, hesitancy, confusing signals and an incredible sense of deliberate denial have reduced the American presence in the decisionmaking process of world affairs dramatically in 4+ short years.

It’s never been easy, often very difficult decisions to choose the least negative perspective have all that’s been available, but decisions have to ne made in consideration of the issues we face, which are far too often NOT the issue we would prefer.

Everyone really has to ask themselves HONESTLY, devoid of excuses, without predudice towards or against anything based solely on the actual results that exist before our eyes. Has the performance of the Obama Administration actually moved the United States forward, or backwards as a meaningful force in world affairs? Is our counsel more accepted, or more ignored, or even rejected? Do our friends, as well as our foes (already recognized as well as potential) have more, or less confidence in the advantage, or disadvantage of American friendship? Is the United States a lot of talk, or do we mean what we say?

As always, there’s good news and bad, the good news is we get a fabulous opportunity to make significant changes next year, and again 2 years after that. The bad news is, “we get a fabulous opportunity to make significant changes next year, and again 2 years after that.

The one thing that remains constanr is, “in a Democratic Republic form of government, like we have in the United States, “We” the people get to choose our leaders and when we choose poorly, “We” those same people, have nobody to blame but ourselves for the consequences of our choices. God willing, we’ll choose wisely.